Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Sure. Theology is the branch of philosophy related to the proposition that a God exists, and effects humanity. Religions are collections stories, images, rituals, practices and traditions intended to help people live according to a specific theological proposition.
Unfortunately, when most theists are asked for that definition, what they give, instead, is their religious image, as depicted by their religious stories, icons, and so on, of God as they choose to imagine it. Which then drives the discussion into the religion, and away from the theology, where it immediately falls apart. I empathize with atheist's complaints that theists can't seem to give them a proper definition of the God being proposed. On the other hand, most atheists are materialist, who are intent on rejecting ANY proposition that is not material (physical) in nature. So in nearly all instances, the discussion is doomed before it can begin.
It is hard. If Moses and John says god is X, that doesn't explain what god is just that Moses and John said it rather than 21st century Jane and Joe. So, it's deflecting the question without answering it. Most atheists know "about" what theists call god but they just don't know his nature-hence the comparing them to pixies and monsters.
Although I don't share a lot of the criticisms some atheists with abrahamic experience quotes, the "giving the definition before discussion" is just basic discussion ethics not religious in nature. The definitions should be given for sake of conversation. So far, I got a good list of definitions of god but I wouldn't compare them to pixies nor fantastical claims. I'd just say the believer has to open up a bit without feeling threatened to talk about what god is for any atheist who wish to have a good discussion to have some basis of comparison.
Not all atheists are materialist. Not believing in god does not mean one doesn't believe in the supernatural. They just don't believe in deities.
Yes. It takes patience. Though, maybe both parties are coming at it the wrong way?
Well, if the participants are intelligent, they should be able to recognize a general, common, historical/universal definition for God on their own. As it's not that difficult.
The one I give is that God is the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is. Most theists, I think, can agree with this definition, while most atheists cannot accept the "mystery" aspect of it. If they accept that the "mystery" is real, then they have to accept that "God" is real, as the label "God" simply refers to that profound mystery. And they don't want to do that, even though it's a perfectly reasonable thing to do.
Actually, no. I'm an atheist and never grown up with god or anything similar. No Pagan deities. No force. Or anything like that until I came on RF and found out there are so many ways to define reality it's ridiculous. So, the question is not is there a universal definition, but what is "your" definition. I think theist got it wrong thinking god is universal and putting everyone under that criteria of belief before discussions can begin.
The latter part, after a good amount of time, I found that's what theists meant by god and nature of god(s), etc. Whether defined as a noun or verb, since we're all humans, the context is the same the experiences and traditions are different.
If someone asked you to prove the mystery of life or purpose of all that is, is real how would you go about it?
How can you justify your experiences to discuss how you believe god exists without depending on if the atheist is receptive to it or not?